I agree with the author that "it makes no sense to ban the use of neuroenhancers." I'll talk about Ritalin, because that's the one I know.
Let us stipulate, for now, that Ritalin both improves certain aspects of human cognition and causes negative physiological side effects, potentially including addiction. (I believe both to be true.)
As it stands, doctors generally can't prescribe Ritalin if there is nothing 'wrong' with you. Just improving cognitive performance for 'normal' people isn't allowed.
In my opinion, that is not as it should be. What could possibly be more generically worth doing than improving human cognition -- thereby potentially advancing all worthy human pursuits: curing disease, saving babies from starvation, traveling the stars, etc. etc.
That's the big picture, and one reason that I think we as a society should allow people to dope their brains if they want. But the small picture is also interesting. What if you personally could significantly improve the quality and rate of your output (be it software, architectural designs, robots, whatever), but doing so involved some negative consequences and a minor amount of risk to your health. Would you be interested? I was.
I have used Ritalin extensively, and in my mind very successfully. It definitely helps me write cleaner code with fewer bugs in less time than without it. It's a programming force-multiplier for me.
(It can also help with getting various other things done more efficiently. However, I personally don't find taking a powerful simulant to do something like clean my garage to be a worthwhile tradeoff.)
Using these stimulants need not be illegal, at least in the US. There are many doctors you can visit, describe certain aspects of your personality, how your concentration isn't where you'd like it to be, and recieve an ADHD diagnosis with a prescription.
But since you have to obtain a 'disease' diagnosis to get the drug legally, many people don't, and the result is that many kids (and adults) end up popping their friends' pills illegally, without appropriate medical supervision. It would be better if everybody could discuss it frankly with a competent doctor, without the little sham of pretending they're taking it to 'fix' something rather than just to improve mental function.
Whether Ritalin is 'worth the risk' is a personal judgement, one that depends entirely on what you are using it for. But for me, it unquestionably has been. At certain times in my life, I've used Ritalin to dramatically improve my contribution to important projects. I think that at least one of these project would have failed entirely, without me being in superman mode. And these are the projects that have shaped my career, and so have pretty much directly led to the comfortable standard of living I and my family now enjoy. Ergo, if I had never encountered Ritalin, I think it's very likely that I would have a smaller house and less free time than I presently do have. Verdict: Ritalin is fucking awesome.
OTOH, I'd never use it year round (heart and addiction risks), never instead of sleeping properly, never ever ever fucking give Ritalin to a child, I get kinda irritable after a whole day on it, it somewhat degrades the quality of my, uh, stools, it feels a little bit speedy (which I dislike), and it totally degrades certain other aspects of human cognition, such as those required for writing fiction, watching a dance recital, or listening sympathetically to my wife bitch about her day.
I've always been interested in nootropics and have dabbled with most of the ones you can get on your own -- piracetam, vasopressin, choline, DHA/DHEA, green tea, etc. -- and none of them had nearly as noticeable an impact as Ritalin. (Green tea is the only one of those I've stuck with.) I have never tried Modafinil but am keenly interested, and am likely to discuss it with my doctor the next time I have a software project where I feel that it's really important to me to be at my absolute best.
Methylphenidate is a rather new drug. Until we know all the risks doctors won't prescribe it when not (absolutely) necessary. I don't think that's a bad thing. And I don't relate caution with banning.
Sure, I can understand that point of view, although I don't quite agree.
But I probably should have mentioned somewhere in my comment that I believe pretty much all drugs should be legal, even just for people who want to get high -- so of course I advocate individual choice for drugs that demonstrate benefits that can actually improve one's quality of life (beyond simple recreation).
Ever heard about Thalidomide? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
I think there are good reasons why we are careful with prescribing drugs.
Take cocaine for example. Before 1900 they used it a lot. Even on children. But cocaine addiction caused a lot of troubles.
Are Ritalin and Thalidomide in the same reference classes, that it makes any sense to compare them? Specifically, one drug was offered for less than 3 years or so, and then withdrawn due to horrible unexpected side-effects that were suspected within a year or two. And another drug has been publicly prescribed for roughly 50 years and has been investigated in detail with a long list of pretty well-understood side-effects. (You tell me which is which.)
>>Whether Ritalin is 'worth the risk' is a personal judgement
If Ritalin becomes legal for enhancement purposes, as you recommend, it won't be a personal judgement to use it or not; it will be something you will have to use just to compete.
Edit: That said, I'd love to get my hands on Ritalin legally. :-) (I'm not going to start doing illegal drugs.)
That's probably true, to an extent. I mean, not that people would literally be forced to use performance-enhancing drugs, but that they might feel increasingly pressured to do so.
Still, people already have to make a lot of hard health-impacting choices in order to compete. For instance, I would be surprised if Ritalin, in commonly prescribed doses, was likely to be more harmful than the unhealthily insufficient sleep habits of many (most?) harried modern workers. (I'd definitely welcome additional studies on both of those topics, though.)
Let us stipulate, for now, that Ritalin both improves certain aspects of human cognition and causes negative physiological side effects, potentially including addiction. (I believe both to be true.)
As it stands, doctors generally can't prescribe Ritalin if there is nothing 'wrong' with you. Just improving cognitive performance for 'normal' people isn't allowed.
In my opinion, that is not as it should be. What could possibly be more generically worth doing than improving human cognition -- thereby potentially advancing all worthy human pursuits: curing disease, saving babies from starvation, traveling the stars, etc. etc.
That's the big picture, and one reason that I think we as a society should allow people to dope their brains if they want. But the small picture is also interesting. What if you personally could significantly improve the quality and rate of your output (be it software, architectural designs, robots, whatever), but doing so involved some negative consequences and a minor amount of risk to your health. Would you be interested? I was.
I have used Ritalin extensively, and in my mind very successfully. It definitely helps me write cleaner code with fewer bugs in less time than without it. It's a programming force-multiplier for me.
(It can also help with getting various other things done more efficiently. However, I personally don't find taking a powerful simulant to do something like clean my garage to be a worthwhile tradeoff.)
Using these stimulants need not be illegal, at least in the US. There are many doctors you can visit, describe certain aspects of your personality, how your concentration isn't where you'd like it to be, and recieve an ADHD diagnosis with a prescription.
But since you have to obtain a 'disease' diagnosis to get the drug legally, many people don't, and the result is that many kids (and adults) end up popping their friends' pills illegally, without appropriate medical supervision. It would be better if everybody could discuss it frankly with a competent doctor, without the little sham of pretending they're taking it to 'fix' something rather than just to improve mental function.
Whether Ritalin is 'worth the risk' is a personal judgement, one that depends entirely on what you are using it for. But for me, it unquestionably has been. At certain times in my life, I've used Ritalin to dramatically improve my contribution to important projects. I think that at least one of these project would have failed entirely, without me being in superman mode. And these are the projects that have shaped my career, and so have pretty much directly led to the comfortable standard of living I and my family now enjoy. Ergo, if I had never encountered Ritalin, I think it's very likely that I would have a smaller house and less free time than I presently do have. Verdict: Ritalin is fucking awesome.
OTOH, I'd never use it year round (heart and addiction risks), never instead of sleeping properly, never ever ever fucking give Ritalin to a child, I get kinda irritable after a whole day on it, it somewhat degrades the quality of my, uh, stools, it feels a little bit speedy (which I dislike), and it totally degrades certain other aspects of human cognition, such as those required for writing fiction, watching a dance recital, or listening sympathetically to my wife bitch about her day.
I've always been interested in nootropics and have dabbled with most of the ones you can get on your own -- piracetam, vasopressin, choline, DHA/DHEA, green tea, etc. -- and none of them had nearly as noticeable an impact as Ritalin. (Green tea is the only one of those I've stuck with.) I have never tried Modafinil but am keenly interested, and am likely to discuss it with my doctor the next time I have a software project where I feel that it's really important to me to be at my absolute best.